Category Archives: Texas

I have fantastic news to share — marriage won huge victories last night in critical election races in Houston and Kentucky! These electoral victories prove without a doubt that the American people do not accept the illegitimate and anti-constitutional ruling of the US Supreme Court redefining marriage, and they reject the attempt by the left to use that illegitimate ruling as a springboard to further advance the agenda of those who wish to destroy marriage.

Voters went to the polls and overwhelming rejected the LGBT agenda in Houston, where the city's lesbian mayor, backed by the money and muscle of the grossly misnamed Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and other national LGBT groups, attempted to force through an ordinance that prohibited discrimination based on "gender identity" and "sexual orientation." Nearly 62% of Houston voters said "NO" to the so-called Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, which was jammed through the City Council by Houston's mayor.

It's a tremendous victory for supporters of marriage and common sense, people who realize that biology trumps "feelings" and "identity" when it comes to men and women. It is not discrimination to treat a man as a man, even if that person wants to say that he "feels" he's a woman. And it is not discrimination to keep men out of intimate facilities reserved for women, like bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. Keeping sex-segregated facilities separate is common sense, a policy that protects people's privacy and safety.

It's also a tremendous victory for NOM in our battle against the HRC and groups that are bent on imposing same-sex 'marriage' like Marriage Equality USA and the American Unity Fund. These groups contributed nearly $700,000 through October 23rd, and likely hundreds of thousands more in recent days. They organized their supporters across the country to make calls.

And they lost — big time!

NOM was a major financial contributor to the Campaign for Houston, the grassroots group that spearheaded the referendum, and we worked hard to organize our supporters all over the country to contribute directly to the campaign, and to get out to vote against the ordinance.

The results give us a tremendous sense of pride and encouragement to redouble our efforts nationwide to fight for the truth of marriage, the complementarity of men and women, and the rights of children. We congratulate the leadership and supporters of the Campaign For Houston on their tremendous success, especially Jared Woodfill, the campaign manager.

But Houston was not our only victory for marriage last night!

In Kentucky, pro-marriage champion Matt Bevin soundly defeated the gay marriage movement's candidate, incumbent Attorney General Jack Conway. NOM endorsed Mr. Bevin several weeks ago and has worked to promote his candidacy. Bevin pledged to support marriage and protect marriage supporters like Kim Davis and others who will not violate their conscience to be personally complicit in the lie that is same-sex 'marriage.' In contrast, Conway refused to defend the state's marriage amendment as attorney general and was a major reason why it failed in court.

Now Conway's career lies on the trash heap of history, and a pro-marriage champion, Matt Bevin, is ascending to the governorship of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

Once again, when given the opportunity to cast a free vote, the American people have voted for the truth of marriage and for candidates who stand with them. We congratulate Matt Bevin on his tremendous victory, and look forward to working with him to enact legislation that will protect all marriage supporters, including Kim Davis, from discrimination and retaliation for refusing to go along with the illegitimate and unjust ruling of the Supreme Court in attempting to impose a redefined version of marriage on the nation.

The results in Houston and Kentucky also serve as the latest abject lesson for our side: never believe polling claims that purport to show that the public is somehow embracing the redefinition of marriage or the expansion of the LGBT agenda. These polls are dead wrong. Supporters of the Houston ordinance constantly claimed that the polls showed they would win, yet they got trounced. And in Kentucky, the media was claiming that Jack Conway held a commanding 5 point lead over Matt Bevin days before the election and was the overwhelming favorite to win. Again, Conway got creamed, losing to Bevin by 9 points.

The truth is that when the American people are allowed to cast free and fair ballots in the privacy of the polling booth, they stand for marriage and the candidates who stand with them.

We thank you for all your work in Houston and in Kentucky to help secure these great victories, and for your faithful support of NOM. Once again, we've put everything we could into the fight and are in need of your financial support to replenish our coffers. Please make a celebratory donation to NOM today so that we can begin to focus on the critical opportunities before us, including electing a pro-marriage champion as our next president.

Today is Election Day in many parts of the country. NOM is particularly watching races in Houston, TX and in Kentucky.

In Houston, voters have the rare opportunity to overturn an act of their City Council thanks to a referendum that local citizens qualified to the ballot. The grossly-misnamed Houston Equal Rights Ordinance would give the LGBT community special legal rights including the ability for men to use restrooms and showers reserved for women simply by claiming a "gender identity" of the opposite sex. They call it the HERO ordinance, but there is nothing heroic about risking the privacy and safety of people to pursue a PC policy on behalf of a tiny group of people that is advanced by the city's lesbian mayor.

Just having the opportunity to vote on this dangerous ordinance has been a tremendous struggle. The mayor and city officials did everything they could to disregard the voter petitions, even notoriously threatening local pastors with demands to review all their sermons and correspondence about the measure in order to pressure them to drop their campaign. The Texas Supreme Court had to order the measure on the ballot.

Our friend Ryan Anderson from The Heritage Foundation has written a thoughtful piece about the problems with the Houston ordinance and others like it which I commend to your attention.

If you live in Houston, or have family or friends there, please do everything possible to get out and vote against the proposed ordinance. And if you can, please consider making a financial contribution, as NOM has, to the Campaign For Houston to defeat this proposal. National gay and lesbian groups who are determined to rewrite society have taken note of NOM's support of the campaign to overturn this ordinance, and are working overtime to get their allies involved to counter us. Please stand strong for common sense, biology and truth and support the Campaign For Houston in their work to overturn this terrible ordinance.

Meanwhile in Kentucky, two important statewide races are on the ballot. NOM has endorsed Matt Bevin in his race for Governor of Kentucky. Bevin is running for this open seat to replace Gov. Steve Beshear against the incumbent state Attorney General, Jack Conway. Conway is one of the people most responsible for marriage being redefined in Kentucky because he refused to mount a defense of Kentucky's state marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He betrayed the 75% of Kentucky voters who approved marriage.

Meanwhile, Beshear's son, Andy Beshear, is running for Attorney General to replace Conway. The younger Beshear has defended the decision of his father to abandon marriage and force local officials like Kim Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples that violate the state constitution. His refusal to grant them a reasonable accommodation is what landed Kim Davis in jail. NOM has endorsed Whitney Westerfield for Attorney General because he's stood strong for marriage and is determined to protect the religious liberty rights of marriage supporters.

Polls indicate that the Kentucky races are close and turnout will be the key. If you live in Kentucky or have friends or family there, please do what you can to urge them to get out to vote for Matt Bevin and Whitney Westerfield.

Elections have consequences, and the races in Houston and Kentucky are important ones. The other side has money and power, but we have the truth and the people. May truth and the people prevail.

Mayor Andy Mack of Longview Texas declared August ‘Celebrate Traditional Marriage’ month. As a result, a coalition of citizens and East Texas Churches organized an event, to which a crowd estimated near one-thousand turned out to celebrate on the Gregg County courthouse lawn.

Around a thousand people came out to support the event, many with deep religious conviction.

"It's very important. I believe God put us together and he keeps us together every day," says Barbara Jones who's been married 47 years.

"It is a commitment and there will be ups and downs, so you just work through those things," says James McClemore, married 45 years.

Representative Brian Hughes was on hand with other elected officials in support of the event.

"We understand how important traditional marriage is. It was defined by God a long time before America was here. And it's so heartwarming to see
so many people come out to affirm that," Hughes says.

On the heels of the June gay pride event, and then the legalization of same sex-marriage, many believe the event was needed.

"It seems like the other side is always getting the headlines," said one married couple.

Marriage - the conjugal, lifetime, exclusive union between one man and one woman - is a sacred institution which is certainly deserving of celebration. Any union that deviates from this definition is not marriage.

The Texas Senate reaffirmed Christian principles when passing a resolution to “affirm the preservation of the present definition of marriage as being a legal union of one man and one woman…” Although the resolution is not binding, it does make a statement to Texas and the country that they will be upholding the true definition of marriage, no matter what it might cost. It is a worthy stand for them to make, and one they know must be done:

Same-sex marriages already are prohibited by the Texas Constitution. But senators who supported the resolution 21-10 said they wanted to make a point, and take a stand on principle.

In their late-night vote, 10 years after Texans voted to ban gay marriage in the state, every Senate Republican effectively said they still support that decision - with a resolution reaffirming the state's 2005 voter-approved ban.

The proposal touched off passionate speeches for and against the measure.

We affirm the preservation of the present definition of marriage as being a legal union of one man and one woman as a husband and wife, and pledge to uphold and defend this principle that is so dearly held by Texans far and wide," the resolution read.

As the day comes closer to the Supreme Court’s decision on marriage, stands such as the Texas Senate’s will become more important. Important to show the Supreme Court that the states can decide on the definition of marriage for themselves, and that is not the right of SCOTUS to decide the beliefs of the American people.

State lawmakers are considering at least five bills designed to block same-sex marriages, which are currently illegal in the state, and some state leaders say they’ll battle to bar the unions regardless of any Supreme Court decision.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a statement reaffirming his opposition to same-sex marriage. He said, “Texans — not unelected federal judges — should decide this important issue for their state.”

A Texas state representative backs this judicial move with several historical precedences. In addition to Texas, Alabama, Michigan, and Louisiana are also taking a stance:

In Louisiana, lawmakers are studying the “Marriage and Conscience Act,” which, if passed, would allow employers to deny same-sex spouses marriage benefits and give state contractors the right to refuse to hire gays and lesbians who marry.

“As the fight for religious liberty moves to Louisiana, I have a clear message for any corporation that contemplates bullying our state: Save your breath,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, wrote in The New York Times.

These states are holding up the right of not only their citizens, but also the right of the State to not be dismissed by unelected officials in the federal government.

In 2005, Texas voters passed a referendum banning same-sex marriages. A federal judge last year ruled the ban unconstitutional but issued a stay on his ruling as the issue moved through higher courts.

The fact that the Supreme Court is considering cases from Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan and Kentucky but not Texas should preclude state officials here from automatically following any decision from the highest court, said Jonathan Saenz, president of Texas Values, which opposes same-sex marriages.

…

The people’s will, proved through the 2005 referendum, outweighs any decisions by a federal court, he said. One of his bills would bar public funding to license or recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples, regardless of any Supreme Court ruling. As of late Monday (May 11), the bill appeared to have a majority of support in the state House.

Leading by example is one of the highest and effective forms of leadership, and Texas is proving that their ideals and their government truly are led by the people. All states and all citizens should take up the American cause to give the power back to the people, and let the states decide their own fates.

“The sovereignty of states is not something to be taken lightly,” Bell said. “It’s something intended by the framers of our Constitution.”

Texas Republicans are pushing legislation to bar local officials from granting same-sex couples licenses to marry, launching a preemptive strike against a possible U.S. Supreme Court ruling next month that could declare gay marriage legal.

Supporters of the measure, which is scheduled for a vote as soon as Tuesday in the Texas House, said it would send a powerful message to the court. Taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement, they said they also hoped to keep any judicially sanctioned right to same-sex marriage tied up in legal battles for years to come.

The measure, by Rep. Cecil Bell, a Republican from the outskirts of Houston, would prohibit state and local officials from using taxpayer dollars “to issue, enforce, or recognize a marriage license . . . for a union other than a union between one man and one woman.”

Bell said the bill “simply preserves state sovereignty over marriage.”

On Monday afternoon, a crowd of 250 gathered at the Texas Capitol to defend marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The rally was headlined by Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, a prominent champion for marriage. During his speech, Moore encouraged other lawmakers to stand up to defend the biblical definition of marriage:

“No court has any authority to redefine what God proposed in Genesis,” Moore said. “The definition of marriage, you want it by man, it doesn’t come by man, it comes from God.”

Moore also called for Supreme Court of the United States Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to recuse themselves from this summer’s arguments on same-sex marriage because they’ve officiated gay weddings.

Because he’d advised probate courts not to recognize gay marriage licenses, he said he abstained from an Alabama Supreme Court vote ordering judges to stop issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

“I didn’t vote in my case, because I had expressed my opinion,” Moore said. “They should do the same thing.”

In addition to Moore, several other prominent political leaders spoke, including GOP Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. The Texas Observer reports:

Patrick said the rally, organized by the Conservative Republicans of Texas, was about two issues: supporting “traditional marriage” and defending states’ rights.

“It’s not about being anti-anyone,” Patrick said. “It’s about being for marriage between a man and a woman.”

Secondly, Patrick said, “It’s not the federal government’s business to tell Texans what to do in Texas on any issue.”

"The D.C. Council is attempting to force religious institutions to provide services, make employment decisions, or participate in activities that directly violate their faith," said Sen. Cruz. "No government entity should be able to coerce organizations - whether they be non-profits or religious schools - into funding abortion services or promoting gender policy that is contrary to the organization's fundamental mission.

"D.C.'s legislation would require pro-life organizations to fund abortions. It would require Catholic schools to pay for abortions, in direct contravention of their faith. That is wrong, and unconstitutional. Despite pending legislation that might provide a temporary exemption limited to insurance coverage, the D.C. Council is ultimately telling institutions within the District that a day will come when they must make the intolerable choice between complying with the law and abiding by their religious convictions. Rather than discriminating against pro-life and religious organizations, D.C. should welcome diversity of thought and protect the freedom of conscience. We must stop this assault on the Catholic Church, and we must act to protect religious liberty. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee the nation's capital, and I urge my colleagues in both houses to pass this resolution and affirm the First Amendment rights of all citizens."

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals today announced on their website the justices selected to hear the appeals of lower court rulings on gay marriage cases from Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana. The panel consists of Judges Patrick Higginbotham of Dallas, Jerry Smith of Houston and James Graves Jr. of Jackson, Miss. Higginbotham and Smith are conservative judges appointed to the bench by President Reagan, while Graves is an Obama appointee. Marriage supporters tell NOM they are encouraged by the panel.

The panel will hear an appeal next week from state officials in Texas and Mississippi where lower federal court judges overturned state marriage amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The same panel will hear an appeal from gay couples in Louisiana who were rebuffed by a federal judge in their attempt to redefine marriage in that state.

The 5th Circuit is one of the most conservative in the country. If they vote to uphold traditional marriage laws, as many observers expect, they will join the 6th Circuit which issued a similar ruling this past October. The US Supreme Court is now considering taking the 6th Circuit case, something that NOM has called upon them to do. The first opportunity for the SCOTUS justices to take the case will be in their conference scheduled for January 9th.

Christians across America are joining I Stand Sunday this weekend, November 2, 2014, as speakers from across the nation gather at Grace Community Church in Houston, Texas to focus on the freedom to live out our faith free of government intrusion or monitoring.

We will stand with pastors and churches in Houston, Texas who have been unduly intimidated by the city's Mayor in demanding they hand over private church communication.

"Ordinary citizens' voices and values are being trampled in a headlong rush by activist federal judges to redefine marriage in defiance of thousands of years of human experience. The American people, and our leaders in Congress, need to step up and restore the powers of government to their proper balance." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

Washington, D.C. — The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) expressed deep disappointment and anger today at news of a ruling by Texas federal court judge Orlando Garcia that Texas's amendment in defense of marriage is somehow unconstitutional. While the judge immediately stayed his ruling pending appeals, NOM's President said that this ruling evinces a profoundly disturbing trend of judicial activism.

"We've seen a rash of these rulings in recent weeks, all making the same errors about binding Supreme Court precedents relevant to marriage and all issued by activist judges bound and determined to redefine marriage in defiance of thousands of years of human experience," said Brian Brown, NOM President. "These egregious decisions by unelected judges throwing out the votes of millions of Americans have been shamefully encouraged, aided, and abetted by the lawless actions of President Obama and his administration, especially the Attorney General. It simply has to stop. Critical issues like marriage that are foundational to civilization cannot be permitted to be taken over by activist judges and out of control political appointees. The voices and values of ordinary citizens are being trampled by judges determined to impose profound social change that affects citizens in the deepest and most fundamental ways. The American people, and our leaders in Congress, need to step up and restore the powers of government to their proper balance."

Brown said that this decision was a further signal of the near certainty that the question of marriage would return before the bench of the U.S. Supreme Court before long. He expressed hope that the Court, in that event, would hold to its own logic in the 2013 Windsor decision and affirm states' rights to determine marriage for themselves. However, Brown stressed the need for Congress to act decisively with respect to marriage by passing an amendment to the Federal Constitution.

"Congress needs to send a federal marriage amendment to the states for ratification and put an end to this mockery of government," said Brown. "From the President to the Attorney General, to activist federal judges around the nation and even to some state attorneys general and governors in the various states, we're seeing a shameful lack of integrity and an utter rebellion against the rule of law and the sovereign rights of the American people. Power needs to be returned to the American people to uphold the right of the people to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray, [email protected], or Matille Thebolt, [email protected], at 703-683-5004

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

The battle to defend marriage, and the faith communities that sustain it, is increasingly coming down to one’s view of the Constitution and particularly what the Founding Fathers intended as the balance between state’s rights and the powers of the federal government. Activist judges and an overreaching Obama administration continue to attempt to curtail the right of states to define marriage as they see fit.

However, Jennifer Hickey of Newsmax wrote yesterday reminding each of us that protection of state’s rights continues to gain supporters in the US House of Representatives. She reports on Congressman Weber’s (R-TX) “State Marriage Defense Act” and the growing number of co-sponsors the bill has.

Congressman Weber introduced the bill so that,

If state law recognizes two people as married, federal law will recognize them as married; if state law does not recognize them as married, federal law will not recognize them as married.

"We do not want to apply Massachusetts law in Texas, any more than Massachusetts wants Texas law applied there," U.S. Rep. Randy Weber, who in January introduced the State Marriage Defense Act of 2014, told Newsmax.

The Texas Republican's legislation currently has 38 co-sponsors and is supported by the Family Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Concerned Women for America, and Heritage Action.

The congressman acted in the wake of widespread confusion among states on how to react to the Supreme Court's decision last year to strike down parts of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
…

Weber said his bill would "provide clarity to federal agencies seeking to determine who qualifies as a spouse for the purpose of federal law.

"This legislation is not about denying anyone the right to marry, but it is a states' rights issue with the goal of helping to clarify the confusion among federal and state agencies."

Ryan Anderson of The Heritage Foundation told Newsmax, “[T]hat Weber's bill protects ‘the sovereign authority of states to recognize marriage as they see fit. It does not say what marriage has to be defined as in any particular state. I do think the Justice Department's decision to ignore the Utah law highlights the need for this law.’”

The State Marriage Defense Act will "restore proper legal order to the scene and correct the administration's unlawful practice," Notre Dame law professor Gerald Bradleywrote, saying that federal agencies "have no inherent legal authority to define marriage. Neither does the president or his attorney general, so long as Congress has exercised its paramount authority to do so."

One of the questions NOM always gets is, “What can one person do to make a difference?” Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert got the same question at last weekend’s Values Voter Summit hosted by the Family Research Council. Watch and listen to his simple 90-second response:

When officers and enlisted swear their oath in joining the Army or Air National Guard, they vow to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State/Commonwealth/District/Territory" where they are serving.

The Obama administration determined this month that married same-sex couples are entitled to spousal military benefits, but three GOP-controlled states - Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi - have refused to grant them to members of their National Guards. Now advocates are urging the federal government to push back. [...]

A Mississippi National Guard spokesman told the news outlet that the unit was "following state law," which, like laws in 30-plus other states, bans same-sex marriage.

Many in the gay marriage movement claim that they have no desire to force their lifestyle on anyone else, they only want the freedom to love and marry whomever they wish. But sometimes this carefully-crafted claim is undermined by the real-world actions of the homosexual community itself.

An example of this was seen last week, as controversy erupted in the media about the Dallas Pride Parade. MyFoxDetroit reported that organizers had stated ahead of this year's event- which took place on Sunday- that "rules related to nudity and sexual behavior would be enforced more strictly than in past years. Police said anyone violating indecency laws in front of children could be charged with a felony."

But many in the gay community were unhappy about the stricter enforcement of the rules, not only in Dallas but across the country:

The warnings outraged some local activists, whose reactions swiftly echoed through gay-oriented social media nationwide.

"To make the parade more 'family friendly' and to accommodate comfort for the increasing number of attending heterosexuals and corporate sponsorship, participants are being asked to cover up!" activist Daniel Scott Cates wrote on his Facebook page. "The 'queer' is effectively being erased from our pride celebration."

Another activist, Hardy Haderman, wrote an aggrieved column for the Dallas Voice, a weekly serving the gay community.

"The assimilationists insist we tone down and throw away all our joyous sexiness," he wrote. "Why? To do that turns the Pride Parade into a We-Are-Ashamed parade, and I refuse to be part of that."

The rules are hardly extreme, however: the article explains that they "were drafted to conform with the city's public nudity ordinance and the state's anti-obscenity law, which bars the parade from featuring sexual paraphernalia and 'real or simulated sex acts.'"

This leaves us wondering how public displays of nudity in front of children and sexual acts on public streets doesn’t equate to forcing others to be exposed to elements of a lifestyle that is understandably objectionable to many.